Tim Cushing 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1568) comment rss

  • On the post: Apparently I'm A Google Shill And I Didn't Even Know It

    Tim Cushing ( profile ), 24 Aug, 2012 @ 03:57pm

    Re:

    So, I assume you'll be moving on then? Your point proved conclusively? "My work is done here" and all that?

  • On the post: Apparently I'm A Google Shill And I Didn't Even Know It

    Tim Cushing ( profile ), 24 Aug, 2012 @ 02:17pm

    The pull quote

    My position on issues related to copyright and patents has been pretty damn consistent since before Google existed.

    15 years. 40,000 posts. All of it archived right here on this site, completely searchable.

    It's probably too much trouble to ask anyone wandering in shouting "shill" to consider the evidence to the contrary but out of everything listed in this post, I'd point to that.

  • On the post: The Stupidity Of The 'Just Go Without' Argument

    Tim Cushing ( profile ), 22 Aug, 2012 @ 10:13pm

    Re:

    Firstly, Pirated content is USUALLY free of DRM?

    Not every pirate does the job perfectly. I'll concede on the snark. "Live by snark. Die by the snark."

    I am glad that you understand that what people actually want is CONTENT. It doesn?t matter what your distribution method is (even if you could magically compress an entire season?s worth of 1080p content into a file the size of a 16px X 16px GIF file) without content (whether that is USER generated or produced by a professional crew) no service will flourish.

    Right. This is what people want and many are actually willing to pay for.

    I think that the point you are trying to make is that people pirate ?becuz of the DRMz?, which is oversimplifying to the point that it is absurd. The content industry could argue that people pirate because they don?t want to spend any money. Everyone knows that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Some people will NEVER pay for content. Some people WOULD pay for content if they couldn?t find it on a pirate site. Some people WOULD pay for content if they could get it. Some people are frustrated with DRM and use that as an excuse to pirate. Some people will NEVER pirate even if it means they cannot access content.

    I'm not making that point, or at least not as exclusively as you state I am. It's one of many reasons. It certainly drives people away from purchasing content laced with DRM. It has also been stated here (and other places) that people have purchased a legit version and torrented one that actually worked. The truth is somewhere in the middle. The people making the argument to "just go without" seem to believe that it's either/or. Pirate/don't buy. There's a lot of solutions in between those two extremes. Many times the "solution" is purchase and put up with the bullshit.

    It IS childish to expect the entire world to supply you with entertainment without compensation. The rights holders are people just like you and I, they have the right to market their creative works as they see fit. The free market (free as in free of controls, not as in free as in free of cost) will dictate their level of success. Piracy circumvents the free market, it introduces artificial competition because you aren?t competing against another creative work or another form of entertainment, you are competing against your own content (I am using the word ?you? ambiguously to mean any and all rights holders). You will notice that I used the words ?rights holder? in lieu of content creator, this is because the content creator in many cases sells the rights to someone else. In many cases the content creator is paid by the distributor, which might be the big bad wolf (BIG HOLLYWOOD).

    I don't think a majority of people (at least not those arguing along the lines I am) are trying to get content for free. They're just not interested in paying for intentionally damaged goods. Piracy may circumvent the market system, but to use this as an excuse to cripple, window, or place other artificial limits on legally purchased goods is asinine. Whoever the rights holder may be, from an indie publisher to the "Big Bad Wolf," it's ludicrous to suggest that people shell out for broken software, movies, etc. simply because piracy exists.

    If you're going to be "competing with your own content," the least you can do is try to provide a superior product.

    Why is YOUR way more realistic than simply doing without? The reality distortion field is strong with this one! In opposition to your ?reality? I present the following: If the content creator doesn?t create something, the consumer will be doing without, right? You know how to make sure a content creator doesn?t create something new, simply pirate their work and ensure that they don?t make any money. You seem to think that FANS = SUCCESS but I can show you countless cases where that simply isn?t true. So arguments that ?piracy HELPS? are anecdotal at best and almost always cognitive dissonance (people are rationalizing their unethical behavior because it makes them feel better about themselves).

    My way is more realistic because that's what actually happens. People circumvent your protection schemes. People pirate your content. People go without. The difference is that people are actually using/enjoying your content. However slim the chance may be that they'll convert to a paying customer or pass it on to someone who will put money in the creators' pockets, that chance still exists. Going without usually means a person is divorcing themselves from a creator/production company/software developer. No more purchasing from X.

    Piracy CAN help and evidence does exist. Here's one link:

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110518/04081614319/perhaps-sequel-can-be-dont-fking-worry-about-piracy.shtml

    Not all of it does, but again, the potential exists. And as for all the arguments that piracy is killing future creativity... I'm not buying it (no pun intended). There's more music, software, movies and books being created than ever, despite the ubiquity of piracy.

    ?A bit of the old infringement? Ahhh, the use to casual colloquialisms to endear readers to your side. Not that anyone reading this fluff piece on the virtues of piracy would have any problem discerning pro-piracy stance, but still, it is somewhat tired.

    So, no paraphrased A Clockwork Orange for you?

    ?..just watching uploads on YouTube?, as if watching pirated content that someone else uploaded is any better than BT downloads. The end result is the same, the person doing this is accessing content to which they are NOT entitled.

    Yeah. "Accessing." Like using a VPN to get out of the rolling blackout that is Youtube in Germany? Many of the videos are blocked there simply because GEMA acts like a hard water filter in search of a LimeAway bath. The videos are legit in the US but suddenly not legit because of someone's IP address? Weird. Germans are not ENTITLED to watch label-uploaded videos. Not everything is pure piracy. Some of it is just regional stupidity.

    ?Streaming video is infringement? (Or was, pre-Posner.) Or somehow morally wrong? That's a position I can't even fathom.?

    Stealing cars is illegal? But I want Chevy to lease me a 2013 Camaro for $1/day. I refuse to pay more. I?m willing to pay but they won?t meet my demands. Plus I want one that gets 100MPG, so until they can provide that should I be allowed to infringe on their rights and just borrow one, RIGHT?

    You seriously cannot be making a car analogy. You actually want to compare driving around in a borrowed/stolen vehicle with temporarily watching something with my eyes or hearing it with my ears. A stream is in motion and is temporary. A car is a physical object that is noticeable in its absence. A stream doesn't remove any content from anywhere. (Neither does torrenting, but let's keep the metaphors on the same page.)

    ?I realize that ad revenue or DVD sales are "lost" when this happens but I have a hard time believing a temporary video stream represents a true loss to the creators. It's not as though it's residing on my hard drive and being transported to and fro by portable devices. It's not a replacement for an actual product I can use in a more versatile fashion.?

    If I just borrow the car, I don?t retain permanent ownership so it isn?t theft, RIGHT? People who stream illegally distributed content instead of purchasing a legitimate stream are taking something. They are taking the experience of watching the content and doing so without providing compensation to the rights holder.

    Point me to some legitimate streams. Hulu is a bricked-up joke thanks to studio interference. Netflix has what it has and thanks to windowing, etc., it's not much. Hollywood doesn't want to play with Netflix. Their call, but the studios aren't really offering up anything to replace it.

    For a personal reference point, I watch a lot of BBC stuff and obscure TV shows that have long since gone off the air. There's no legitimate streams out there and for the BBC stuff, the DVDs aren't available in the proper region coding. There may not ever be enough of a potential market to make these available in formats I can purchase. But how much would making these available via a legit streaming service cost as compared to doing an actual DVD run? Legit streamer very likely would PAY THEM, so what's the angle?

    CAR ANALOGIES ARE NOW BEING ACTIVELY IGNORED.

    To me, streaming video is about as "infringing" as going over to a friend's house to watch their TV. True, the internet gives me a bigger selection of "friends" and a bottomless DVD selection. Other than that, when I'm done with the stream I "leave my friend's house" and the "DVD" stays with "him." If I want to watch it again, I can't do it from my TV. I have to visit him again.

    Let me be clear on this, the 700 people on your Facebook account are not really your ?friends?. The thousands of people using BT to get the latest Batman installment are not even acquainted. Your comparison of going to your friends? house with downloading movies from BT shows how strong your reality distortion field really is. Watching a movie at a friend?s house actually is providing a service to the rights holders, you are exposing that person to something he or she might purchase. Providing an always available, easily accessible, free, pirated copy of a movie to millions of people simply abets infringers. (I firmly believe that Judge Posner?s opinions will be overturned or simply ignored when considerations of precedent occur)

    First of all, I'm comparing streaming, not torrenting, so my reality distortion field is only as strong as your misreading.

    "Watching a movie at a friend?s house actually is providing a service to the rights holders, you are exposing that person to something he or she might purchase."

    As is watching streams. If the BBC ever springs for some Region 1 encoding, I will be buying some DVDs. I'd rather watch these shows from the comfort of something comfortable rather than sitting at my desk.

    As for Posner, we'll see. As for the rest of your point about torrenting, it's all yours. I'm still discussing my personal views on STREAMING.

    I agree in principle that part of the responsibility for some of the infringement lies with rights holders? neglecting the digital marketplace. I would much rather purchase content directly from the rights holder, that way I know I am reimbursing the appropriate person or organization. Ideally I could see a wholesale marketplace so that competitors can choose to lower their prices. Unfortunately, I can?t see that ever happening, there are too many power players pushing for exclusive distribution rights. You can actually blame part of the problem on Apple, Amazon, Vudu, etc?

    If possible, I do the same (purchase directly). The number of competing distributors, rights holders, etc. make this little more than a fantasy. But you'd think the actual top end of the content world, the ones making the most noise about piracy, would start slashing through the accumulated cruft NOW while they still have the power and the means to do it, rather than just slowly bleed to death.

    My guess is: not enough money. Ad-supported streaming sites can't match the licensing fees these companies can extract from other services. So we're right back where we started: money being left on the table.

    Absolutely, RIGHT! The first thing you have said that I have no argument against.

    [Restrained huzzah!]

    I don?t think shoehorning everyone into an ad sponsored business model is the thing to do, and I know I am not alone in this. Many people are tired of seeing ads on almost everything around us. It?s advertising overload, I would rather pay a reasonable fee to free myself from advertising than pay nothing and be forced to watch ads. Yes I know about ad blockers, I chose not to use them because I do try to provide the content creators, Techdirt included, with a revenue stream.

    Right. As a value-added service, ad-free streams or rentals, etc. Illegitimate streaming sites serve tons of ads. All you'd have to do to beat them is offer a low, flatrate monthly fee (a la Netflix) with unlimited viewing and you could draw some viewers. You could still run an ad supported site for those who just want free access. The simpler the fees are and the more the prices hover around the "impulse purchase" end of the spectrum, the better the results. All speculation on my part, but it's not as if Netflix doesn't have tons of loyal viewers.

    As I said earlier, it?s the YouTube?s, the Netflix?s, the Vudu?s that are causing part of the problem. You seem to want to put all the blame on the content industry, but it?s the distributors that have caused this mess. Everyone wants exclusive content to draw people to their business.

    I won't put all the blame on the content industry, but it certainly has done its part to price itself out of Netflix's budget and despite being handed one of the few piracy-killers on a golden platter, it's decided to bite the hand that feeds it. Hulu's being crippled by its new masters. If the content industry wants to play hardball with exclusive content, fine. But if no one can afford to carry it for them, then they need to seriously get something going on their own end, or they're simply ceding viewers back to unpaid services.

    I don't know what's more annoying: the moral ground cowboys who would rather the creators made no money than fix their broken delivery systems or the industry "titans" who are constantly being outdone by any techie who can set up a decent file locker.

    I am not a ?moral ground cowboy?, nor am I a pro-piracy shill sent by the Pirate Party, I am a pragmatist. Ultimately what needs to happen is that content needs to made available digitally, in diverse formats, at reasonable prices and consumers should be forced to go through legitimate channels to obtain that content. If you take away all of the DRM arguments: ease of use, availability, file size, time-shifting, place-shifting, etc. There would still be people who would choose to pirate. Nothing will ever prevent piracy but more can be done to limit piracy. Just like more can be done by the industry to provide access to the content.

    I'm almost in full agreement here. But you can't possibly have meant to type this sentence this way: "consumers should be forced to go through legitimate channels to obtain that content." You really can't "force" the consumers to anything without going full-on legislative draconian, and I doubt even that would turn 100% of pirates into paying customers. I don't think resentment is a healthy thing to foster in potential purchasers.

    "Nothing will ever prevent piracy but more can be done to limit piracy. Just like more can be done by the industry to provide access to the content."

    They really need to work on evening out this ratio. To date, "limiting" seems to be more of a priority than "providing."

    P.S. This argument also bugs me: "X is an asshole so I'm going to pirate the shit out him." Really? I don't know how someone can argue "piracy's effect is overstated" or "piracy is a convenient scapegoat for the content industries" and then make a grand statement that you're going to punish someone by doing something ineffectual, only ANGRIER. Vindictive piracy makes absolutely no sense.

    Whole-heartedly Agree! If you pirate content just to spite them, it provides ammunition for them. They can point to the levels of piracy as being a cause of action on the part of the legal system. If there is very little piracy there is little reason for the industry to be reactionary.

    It's like threatening to kick someone's ass and then wailing the everliving shit out of the air three feet away from them.

  • On the post: The Stupidity Of The 'Just Go Without' Argument

    Tim Cushing ( profile ), 22 Aug, 2012 @ 08:59pm

    Re: Nice turn of a phrase

    If I was going to salvage one line from this post, that would be near the top of the list.

  • On the post: Saudi Cleric Weighs In On The Sin Of 'Buying Twitter Followers'

    Tim Cushing ( profile ), 22 Aug, 2012 @ 03:38am

    Brain thing

    a person who pays money for the sake of increasing the number of followers has a weak and disturbed personality

    I must spend too much time immersed in tech-y stuff. I read that sentence the first time as:

    a person who pays money for the sake of increasing the number of followers has a weak and distributed personality

  • On the post: eBay Banishes Demons, Djinns, Work-From-Home Schemes And Other Hellspawn

    Tim Cushing ( profile ), 18 Aug, 2012 @ 04:02pm

    Re: Re:

    ...essentially the same as buying "Fresh" seafood out of the back of a van in in rural Colorado

    I hear that. I live in the Midwest and am deeply suspicious of local sushi restaurants.

  • On the post: eBay Banishes Demons, Djinns, Work-From-Home Schemes And Other Hellspawn

    Tim Cushing ( profile ), 18 Aug, 2012 @ 03:59pm

    Re: Re: I feel...

    I point out its Friday, this was posted in the evening, and its very possible Tim might have had 1 or 2 adult beverages.

    Au contraire. I wrote this up Thursday afternoon when I was only under the influence of 1 or 2 adult substances.

  • On the post: US Women's Gymnastics Team Decides Self-Chosen Nickname 'Fierce Five' Needs Trademark Protection

    Tim Cushing ( profile ), 17 Aug, 2012 @ 08:41pm

    Re:

    Alright. For a cheap driveby swing at me and TD at large, that's actually pretty good. Have some imaginary points.

  • On the post: Where Do Teens Discover New Music? YouTube.

    Tim Cushing ( profile ), 17 Aug, 2012 @ 08:16pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    It's not a bad message, but inserting a carriage return or three would do wonders towards getting it delivered.

  • On the post: eBay Banishes Demons, Djinns, Work-From-Home Schemes And Other Hellspawn

    Tim Cushing ( profile ), 17 Aug, 2012 @ 08:07pm

    Re: I feel...

    Someone's ignoring the two-drink minimum...

  • On the post: eBay Banishes Demons, Djinns, Work-From-Home Schemes And Other Hellspawn

    Tim Cushing ( profile ), 17 Aug, 2012 @ 08:05pm

    Re:

    Good point. It appears neither of them can blink. That's a start...

  • On the post: eBay Banishes Demons, Djinns, Work-From-Home Schemes And Other Hellspawn

    Tim Cushing ( profile ), 17 Aug, 2012 @ 08:04pm

    Re:

    To actually stop piracy, I think you have to shell out for something in djinn form, like a "Royalty Succubus Djinn Infringement Dispel Sharebee Demon SOPA DotcoM SkrilleX."

    Guaranteed to stop all infringement within 3 days! If infringement continues, please contact us for an immediate [6 to 8 weeks] refund [less packaging, distribution, advances, digital conversion expenses, ivory backscratcher monies].

    Act now and received one (1) Trichordist feature post absolutely almost free! [Price of "almost free" post does not include applicable royalties, licensing fees and rhetorical devices {$1.99-$4.99/ea.}]

    Offer not valid in most states. Please consult a physician before, during and after use. Apply gentle pressure to stop bleeding.

  • On the post: People Who Pay For A Service Are A Lot Nicer Than Those Who Don't

    Tim Cushing ( profile ), 17 Aug, 2012 @ 07:37pm

    Re:

    You know who I blame for the increasing trend of broad, sweeping generalizations?

    Society.

  • On the post: Where Do Teens Discover New Music? YouTube.

    Tim Cushing ( profile ), 17 Aug, 2012 @ 07:14pm

    Re:

    Bandcamp is awesome. For demographic purposes, I'm roughly twice your age.

  • On the post: Where Do Teens Discover New Music? YouTube.

    Tim Cushing ( profile ), 17 Aug, 2012 @ 06:28pm

    Anecdotal evidence

    I have a teenage daughter so I can for this. All Youtube, all the time. Of course, like many teenagers, she only "discovers" about the same eight tracks every hour.

    After about three hours or so, I have the powerful urge to grab her by the ears and mousehand and shout, "For the love of Summerisle, this thing is full of music! There's like 72 hours of it uploaded every second! If I wanted to hear an absurdly overdone approximation of Top 40 radio, I'd go down to basement and dig through all the stuff under the stairwell, grab my dusty cd boombox and try in vain to capture a reliable signal out here, miles from civilization!"

    And then I'd throw this dusty box right the fuck out the window and point again to the Internet being so badly misused and yell, "22 million songs at your fingertips and I'm hearing Flo Rida for the 5th time in the last two hours???"

    To counteract this extreme act of "old-manism," I usually wander out to the porch and throw outdated gang signs at passing ruffians to warn them away from the property boundaries.

  • On the post: Where Do Teens Discover New Music? YouTube.

    Tim Cushing ( profile ), 17 Aug, 2012 @ 06:14pm

    Re:

    I read this in the voice of that guy who speed-reads lengthy disclaimers at the end of radio ads.

    I am now badly in need of some oxygen.

  • On the post: As Label Funds To RIAA Dry Up, Top Execs Still Make Over $1 Million

    Tim Cushing ( profile ), 17 Aug, 2012 @ 04:50pm

    ...you'd think that its members could find cheaper execs to keep driving the organization into the ground...

    I bet the old guy down the street who's always bitching about lawn intruders would do it for a year's supply of Hamm's, which works out to well below minimum wage.

  • On the post: Part Of Being More Open And Human Is Actually Holding Conversations With Fans

    Tim Cushing ( profile ), 16 Aug, 2012 @ 04:40pm

    Re:

    I'm unclear as to what you're asking or implying? Do you feel Mike would be more honest (in your eyes) if he said piracy was good and please, everyone, go and do more pirating?

    What do you think he's hiding? The fact that he supports artists he likes by purchasing their music? That's everyone's choice. Anyone can support artists they like. The presumption on the other end, artists have a right to be paid, is the presumption that's wrong.

    Or are you still laboring under the mistaken belief that stating that chasing pirates is an unwinnable battle and a complete waste of time is somehow a statement of support for piracy? That anything pointing out the collateral damage of over-aggressive enforcement against file sharing is somehow a GO TEAM PIRATE manifesto?

    You're trying to twist a whole lot of nothing into something damning. I don't think you'll ever get there, but keep trying, I guess.

  • On the post: Announcing The New Techdirt Insider Shop

    Tim Cushing ( profile ), 16 Aug, 2012 @ 12:44pm

    Re:

    It's a 2XL babydoll tee. It's still summer and we can get away with wearing it.

  • On the post: Announcing The New Techdirt Insider Shop

    Tim Cushing ( profile ), 16 Aug, 2012 @ 12:42pm

    Re: Complaint

    Don't make me bring up your podcast thing again.

    I'm of the opinion that Dark Helmet should bare, AT MOST, his midriff. And only inadvertently.

Next >>